From December 10, Australians under 16 years old are unable to create or keep accounts on most mainstream social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.
These platforms will be required to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent Australians under 16 from accessing their platforms.
This change has been received with a range of reactions, but it can be unanimously agreed that this is a big change for the internet. So what’s driving this ban, and is it a good idea?
Various polls put support of the ban at roughly 60 to 80 per cent, and there are a few main reasons.
When announcing the policy, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, said that ‘social media is causing social harm, and it is taking kids away from real friends and real experiences.’
In a media release about the ban, he elaborated, saying the ban ‘support[s] parents and keep[s] kids safe… because enough is enough.’
The idea that social media causes harm and is unsafe for kids isn’t a groundbreaking opinion.
Social media has the potential to do great harm, particularly to children, who are vulnerable to data collection, online scams, predatory algorithms, targeted advertising, and cyberbullying.
Marketed as a pathway to safety
This legislation is so popular because it’s being marketed as a pathway to safety.
Despite this, 70 per cent of under-16s don’t think that the ban is a good idea.
The general feeling among teenagers is that entirely banning social media for under-16s is pointless, ineffective, and misses the true problem.
Both the BBC and QUT conducted large surveys about the ban. Just some comments from young people include:
‘Social media can be the difference between having human connection and going without. Children [who experience discrimination] use social media as a haven where they can find a community which provides support.’ Anonymous, 16.
‘I think instead of doing a kid version and adult version, there should just be like a crackdown on the content, like tighter restrictions and like stronger enforcement towards the restrictions’ – Anonymous boy, 14.
Local perspective
A 14-year-old Mullumbimby teenager told The Echo, ‘My perspective is that this will affect rural children who connect with friends and stuff through social media’.
‘It will also impact kids with mental disorders, (depression, anxiety, etc.) who can’t properly communicate with people in real life, cutting off means of communication (which has become essential for many since Covid, where everyone was encouraged to stay inside, and keep in touch with each other through social media apps).
‘It’s going to isolate already isolated children. Instead, they should put more safety measures for cyber safety.
‘Plus, youth crimes are going to go up when this happens, especially since the government is putting more restrictions on e-bikes and fishing.
‘They justify the ban by saying there’s bad cyber-bullying, but the real life bullying will just get worse than it already is,’ they added.
Mental health issues
Teenagers use social media for so many reasons.
Banning it would mean the children with mental health issues, disabilities or living remotely would lose important communities and safe spaces.
It would mean cutting off the quarter of young people who consider themselves to be social media creators from a creative outlet and the opportunity to spread their art with the world.
Lack of clarity
Another issue is the uncertainty of the specifications of the ban. Under-16s don’t know what will happen to their current accounts, or how they will be asked to verify their age on different platforms.
This is in part because the responsibility to add age-verifying technology to their apps is on the companies, rather than there being a specific standard set by the government.
Communications Minister Anika Wells compares this law to alcohol regulations, acknowledging that it may not be closely followed or upheld within families, but saying that this doesn’t negate the need for the law.
However, while only 31 per cent of young people aged 14–17 consumed alcohol in 2022-2023, 75 per cent of under-16s plan on continuing to regularly use social media once the ban comes into effect, and a large number of them will be supported by their parents – a third of whom intend to help their children continue to use social media.
‘It’s like trapping water with a net,’ a 13-year-old boy describes.
‘Every single person that I’ve spoken to about it [has] already got plans set in place for how they’re going to get around the social media ban,’ says another teen, a 15-year-old boy.
It seems that for many, a ban that only specifically mentions a select few social media platforms simply means moving to platforms the ban hasn’t yet reached, placing the demographic this ban intends solely to protect into even less regulated online spaces.
One of the most damning arguments against the ban is that it’s hard to find conclusive science behind the government policy.
Professor Susan Sawyer from the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute is currently undertaking research on social media use in relation to adolescent development.
‘Some evidence links social media use to adolescent mental and physical health,’ she explains, ‘but a clear cause-and-effect relationship hasn’t been proven.’
This directly contradicts the reasoning behind the ban, and it raises the question – why is a ‘world-leading’ law being passed without definitive proof that it’s needed?
20k petition against
A petition against the ban received over 20,000 signatures before closing, and two teenagers have launched a High Court challenge against the ban, claiming it’s in violation of their right to communication, with one of them referring to the ban as ‘lazy.’
Experts have even provided alternatives, some arguing in favour of greater restrictions, more parental controls and more comprehensive digital education as a more effective alternative.
But despite this criticism, the government remains steadfast.
‘We will not be intimidated by threats’ states the communications minister.
‘We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by big tech’.
‘On behalf of Australian parents, we will stand firm.’
Eleanor Sena is a year 10 work experience student from Mullumbimby High School.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
